This is a little harsh, but is it totally untrue?
20 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 11 previous comments
- Well, speak of the devil and who should appear. In a sad way we should be thankful tofor showing up and illustrating the attitude referenced in the OP's article.
Jim doesn't bother to refer to a peer-reviewed article that agrees with him, which is what any scientist would do, because there aren't any. He references a bunch of blather prompted by Fox news and execrable anti-science blogs like WUWT.
He's telling us that the sky-blocking pollution that was a concern in 1970 isn't evident when that is exactly what is happening in China where they don't enforce pollution controls. He even uses an almost perfect "Gish Gallop" throwing out garbage talking points one after the other without referencing them. http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-Gish-Gallop-of-epic-proportions.html
Finally uses an obvious sockpuppet account with no public posts, no pictures with a real face, three whole people circled and zero credibility. Hey Anon, if you want invisibility try #chan. #reportedMay 14, 2012
- heh, I didn't notice the sock puppet account. Had three more follow up posts. You saved me a bunch of time. My thanks.May 14, 2012
- It's sad that you have to do this but before you type and edit a comment for ten minutes it's always a good idea to click through and make sure you're talking to a real person.May 14, 2012
- Ok. Read. This. Slowly.
Most of us circle other people because we are interested in what others have to say. When I've circled somebody like Pete McGowan here it's because I've read something he wrote and decided that reading more will teach me something important.
As to the 600-odd people who have me in circles; I'm assuming they have some reason or other. I don't post lolcats.May 15, 2012
- It's not that you disagree. We love differing opinions and debate. It's that your so called arguments are really old, tiredly debunked ideas that have been trotted out for literally decades. You have not spent a single minute checking your own facts and then you declare everyone else wrong and you are an independent thinker, as of you are Galileo. It's preposterous. Galileo was actually right and had evidence to support his facts.
So, as I said, lay it out there Mr. Independent thinker. Give us your three so called best arguments against against agw. But how about you save us all a lot of time and check you breathtakingly novel ideas at skepticalscience.com, because that's all we are going to do to show you that your amazing ideas have already been covered.
Oh and before you start in with how that website is the product of a liberal plot to take over the world and force everyone I to communism, how about you respond to the actual arguments and data posted there.May 15, 2012
- There's also the matter of reputation. Low-post accounts or accounts with "light-weight" post histories are notoriously used as vehicles for disruptive comments on boards clearly committed to serious conversation. This observation goes back to Usenet and IRC chat boards. Your backlist matters.
If a person isn't committed enough to have an account history, public posts or previous scientific interest perhaps it might be a waste of time to detail a response. The "sockpuppet" label doesn't exclusively apply to fake or deceptive accounts but can also refer to low-reputation accounts.May 15, 2012